X-Message-Number: 9125
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #9115 - #9121
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 21:30:28 -0800 (PST)

Hi Bob!

Well, you tempted me too much, so here goes.

First of all, I confess to not having read your book. If you wish to send
a copy to me (and even charge me for it) I will be happy to receive it and
read it. However from what you have said so far you fall way short of 
convincing me.

1. Yes, judgements of probability are based on intuition. But if we are to
   use them in any useful way, we need to systematize that intuition and
   base it on probabilities which are intuitively clear not only to us but
   to those (in this case, those who do not understand cryonics) to whom we
   wish to argue our case. 

   This means that merely quoting or stating a probability (HOWEVER FUZZY)
   is not enough. 

   One of the best ways to systematize such intuitions is actually to test
   them ie. to show that a die falls with each face at an equal probability,
   then try it and see. This strictly speaking proves nothing --- but it
   will put weight on the proposition that the die is fair (or not).

2. You say that your ideas on probability "work". Just what is meant by
   "working" here? The fact that, say, those who judge which horse will
   win, or who will win a boxing match, talk in terms of probabilities 
   essentially says nothing. If they actually take a system, with 
   probabilities agreed upon, and then calculate the probability that
   team A will beat team B, that is something quite different. And it 
   becomes even more different, and worthy of notice, if their estimates
   of probability turn out to fit events better than that of others who
   do NOT use those calculations.

   Just because some notion is used frequently, and you come up with 
   an explanation of why it is used frequently, you have not explicated 
   probability. You have done some anthropology and described how people
   behave. And as anthropology I will not argue with it: that IS how people
   behave. But that is a different question from whether they are doing 
   the right thing (optimal, say, finding probabilities which let them
   win bets more often than lose them --- if you want an explication of 
   what "right thing" might mean).

3. Furthermore, to say that this notion of probability occurs everywhere
   again says nothing about how systematised it is, how well thought out
   it may be, and how well using it helps us deal with the world. 

4. Finally, few people normally calculate probabilities, even in your
   sense. They make a response to the world based on what they know and
   the scene they face at the time. To say that they calculate anything
   is the same as saying that a cat calculates something when it meows
   for food. Sure, it knows some actions tend to bring food, but it meows
   because this has brought food in the past. 

   If the notion of probability, on the other hand, is extended so far
   that we ARE constantly using it, then it becomes close to useless. Those
   who decide against cryonic suspension, or even decide that the whole
   notion is fraudulent, are calculating their own probabilities, just
   as we calculate ours. We both have intuitions of probability. HOW THEN
   DO WE ARGUE THAT OURS ARE BETTER?

So over to you. And if you want to call a halt to this discussion until
I've read your book, that's fine. 

As I have said, I personally don't believe talking about probability has
much to say to our reasons for wanting cryonic suspension. I would choose
it now if I had to because it is far preferable to complete oblivion, 
and only someone who believed that we now stand at the pinnacle of 
civilization and will not advance any farther can argue that it is not.
And I also contribute what I can towards work to improve it, not to
increase any particular probability, but because a suspension which does
not damage my brain is much better than one which will. And of course some
treatment which makes suspension unnecessary for a long time (it can't be
forever, since I would still face accidents, at a minimum) would be even
better --- IF I could find it.

And oh yes, you guessed it!! I do not believe we now stand at the pinnacle of
civilization. I believe that thousands of years from now they (or we, if
we survive by whatever means) will look back on the thinking of today and
consider it as primitive and off-base as we think that of the natives of
New Guinea.

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

PS: And to those who are tired of arguments about probability, my apologies.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9125